If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

It can be argued that the DH makes the game more interesting to watch. But the same game be said about adding grenades into the game.

Why did they have to make the game more interesting? Was it really getting boring with the pitchers batting? Watching pitchers hit can be no fun. But so can watching an Astros-Cubs game last season. The game is a beautiful game, but like anything beautiful, it will always have its faults. I prefer my game to be natural and real, free of plastic surgery attempting to perfect it.

Likes:

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

The AL and NL styles don't really present dramatically different sets of decisions in this hypothetical. The largest really is how the #8 hitter is handled.

No and frankly very few times ever in the NL would the decision actually be yes.

I don't know of an NL manager who would take his pitcher out in that situation. Assuming the catcher was the first out, you've slightly reduced your run expectancy with the sacrifice and now have one out with runners on second and third. In doing so, you've taken the bat out of the hands of a competent hitter (I don't care about a slump, I care about his true talent level and the most likely next outcome). The opposing manager then has the option to bring in a releiver to exploit a platoon advantage on your #8 hitter or presumably given the scenario you described, his starter is pitching lights out too so the opposng manager decides to let him stay in the game and punch out your #8 guy mano to mano. Do you pinch hit for your ace in the bottom of the 6th in a game where he has been brilliant? No. You watch him strike out and end the potential rally. No manager pulls their ace in the scenario. Ever. Its way too easy to be criticized and managers don't keep their jobs by having giraffe necks. But by giving up a free out, you've dramatically increased the odds that your lead off hitter wont see the plate this inning.

How would this play out in a DH-league? You probably wouldn't have to endure watching your catcher bunt. But I donno. I've seen Mike Hargrove do some pretty interesting things.....

Perhaps the bottom of the 6th is a bit early. What if it were the bottom of the 7th? Does that change anything?

Plenty of managers will bunt late in the game to get the winning run on third with less than two outs. The NL manager has to decide whether he is ultimately willing to sacrifice his pitcher to increase his chances of taking the lead. If you bunt in that situation there is a very good chance the #8 hitter is walked and the pitcher is due up with the bases loaded and one out. If you are not willing to pinch hit there, then you probably should not have bunted in the first place.

Let me come at this at a different angle. Is there any scenario where you as a manager would intentionally walk the other team's #8 hitter? If so, what factors would you consider?

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

The pitchers are suffocating the hitters again, driving batting averages down and throwing shutouts at an even more frequent rate than in '68. August has been a particularly bewildering month for those who assumed that the lowering of the pitching mound and tightening of the strike zone back in 1969 had accomplished for all time the purpose of equalizing offense and defense. At the end of last week, with 36 games still to be played in the month, 57 shutouts had been thrown in August alone, and there had been 59 games in which pitchers gave up four or fewer hits. There were 40 more in which one team or the other had only five hits

Lee MacPhail

"There is little doubt," MacPhail said, "that the pitchers may have adapted quicker to lowering the mound than we thought they would. But many people in the game are quite conservative, and making a lot of rule changes all at once will not happen.

"Some people," says MacPhail, "have discussed an eight-man lineup as a solution to the problem because the reduced batting order would get your three, four and five hitters—your key run producers—up twice more a game in many cases. There are also those who want to limit the number of pitchers you can have on a team. This would help the hitter in that he would not be seeing so many different pitchers. I don't know that I like the idea too much. Some of the bigger heroes in the game are relief pitchers and I don't think we should lose sight of that fact."

The idea MacPhail still likes best is the "designated hitter," a man who would usually bat in place of the pitcher. "It was tried in the International League three years ago with great success," he says. "It does not mess up strategy that much, and the starting pitcher stays in the game. It is also a way to keep well-known players in baseball just to hit without requiring them to withstand the wear and tear of playing defense. I'm talking about men like Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and maybe Henry Aaron in a couple of years.

"The one thing I am sure of is that the hitting situation is not a matter just of the National League or the American," he concluded. "It doesn't go along league lines. It's everyone's problem. I hope that we are not back to exactly where we were four years ago. But what I see of the trend I don't like."

Likes:

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Is it okay to say that the DH was a GIMMICK when introduced? Other sports gimmicks... XFL deciding game opening possession with "who gets the ball first" and the White Sox in shorts. Next thing you know we will see Spiderman Movie logos on the bases. Keep GIMMICKS out of a great game.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Originally Posted by 757690

It can be argued that the DH makes the game more interesting to watch. But the same game be said about adding grenades into the game.

Why did they have to make the game more interesting? Was it really getting boring with the pitchers batting? Watching pitchers hit can be no fun. But so can watching an Astros-Cubs game last season. The game is a beautiful game, but like anything beautiful, it will always have its faults. I prefer my game to be natural and real, free of plastic surgery attempting to perfect it.

Yes because grenades and above average hitters getting more PA's in lieu of automatic outs are the same thing.

Hey, at least sending the pitcher to the plate gives fans more opportunities to come to the game and not actually watch it and those PA's are legit reasons they don't have to feel guilty about or stodgy fans can mock them for....

"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Why don't we add designated runners too? Who wants to see a slow guy run the bases.

How about unlimited substitutions like basketball? That would add some excitement, eh?

Why not just bring the relief pitcher in from the bullpen in a little red clown car? The kids would love it and it would add a new level of entertainment for the casual fans who can't stand such mundane stuff as the actual strategy and tactics which evolved over the past 150 years.

After all, all that thinking can hurt your brain. I want to be entertained. Blow something up, for goodness sake!!!!

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
~ Mark Twain

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Originally Posted by RFS62

Why don't we add designated runners too? Who wants to see a slow guy run the bases.

How about unlimited substitutions like basketball? That would add some excitement, eh?

Why not just bring the relief pitcher in from the bullpen in a little red clown car? The kids would love it and it would add a new level of entertainment for the casual fans who can't stand such mundane stuff as the actual strategy and tactics which evolved over the past 150 years.

After all, all that thinking can hurt your brain. I want to be entertained. Blow something up, for goodness sake!!!!

Lets stop acting like we've hit our heads on something hard and lets back away from insane hyperbole for a second....

This is the baseball equivalent of a clown car: .129/.162/.165, wOBA=.149 (pitcher offense last season). And it's not lact like there are tomes of great wisdom that have been created to allow managers to compensate for having such a black hole in their lineups. What's more, given the impact the DH has had on the AL style and the resulting increase in attendance, it's pretty hard to argue that the DH has been a blight on baseball-when it's been implemented, fans have reacted positively. And frankly, it's begging the question to A) argue NL fans are smarter or more prone to be students of the game than AL fans, and B) that the majority of fans at the park are even actually watching the game at any given point in the game....

And lets state another obvious point...for as beautiful as watching Mike Leake bat like a shortstop is, you still then have to watch him pitch like a batting practice pitcher (dinger, dinger, dinger)....

Last edited by jojo; 03-14-2013 at 09:49 AM.

"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

Most of us here love stats and I think it is safe to assume you do as well. I believe the 12.8% more runs, but how can 13.4% attendance be attributed to the DH? I would love to see the facts that prove this 13.4% attendance boost that is relative to the DH. I will Google the study you mention. Of course you said "estimated"... like Calgon gets dishes "virtually" spot-free.

Maybe wait to read the paper before criticizing their approach?

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

I can argue that a good economy during the 1980s helped attendance. The 3-in-a-row and personable A's might have helped. Those memorable 77-78 Yanks and Mr. October. Perhaps the Cable TV thing (TBS, WGN, ESPN, etc) might have helped interest/attendance.

Why would these things disproportionately impact the AL and not the NL corresponding to the the AL instituting the DH?

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

The scoring now does favor the AL. As the pitching now favors the NL, right?

Actually no. AL pitching is generally stronger. AL pitchers don't get to pad their stats by pitching to other pitchers. Generally, pitchers going from the AL to the NL have their peripherals rise while pitchers going the other way see their peripherals fall.

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

One more question. Not sure how much you care for basketball (b-ball), but you are sharp. Why not have a designated free throw shooter in b-ball? Say any time a team has a free throw they can substitute in their DFT (desig. free thrower) for the person at the line? Scoring is sexy and increases attendance and revenue. Why not?

I really don't care for basketball much these days. What is sexy is talent. Pitchers clearly can't hit and the disparity between pitchers and league average offensive performance is gaping. We're not talking about Shaq shooting 50% from the free throw line. We're talking about a player shooting 10% meaning literally there is no reasonable expectation for acceptable success so the game actually changes to exploit this futility.

That's the NL "strategy" that many hold so dear. A relatively small set of strategem meant to exploit or compensate futility.

There is nothing wrong with that and it's reasonable for people to enjoy watching that wrinkle. But it's also reasonable for people to enjoy not having to watch futility. Clearly I watch both styles, being a fan of teams that play in both leagues.

"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

I know everyone is saying "oh, it's coming!" Yet what is the justification behind it? When it was introduced in the early 70's offense was way down and the AL was floundering. They needed some sort of gimmick to bring people to the ballpark. Yet baseball popularity is on the rise, and the NL beats the AL in average attendance most years (adding Houston to the AL will only make it worse). Television and radio ratings in NL towns are also consistently higher. So what benefit would NL owners see? Adding the DL would add cost and would likely not bring in any more revenue. It's no longer a novelty. People see it all the time in the AL. Maybe if the MLBPA really pushed for it, but once again, why would owners in the NL be willing to give up something that would be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations for all of MLB? No way they sign off on something where they are the only ones taking a hit.

Competition? While the AL often wins interleague, the NL has won 4 of the last 5 World Series and 7 of the last 12. So in the only interleague games that really matter, the NL competes really well.

I just don't see the reasoning behind it from the NL's perpective. Added cost for zero to minimal benefit. Why in the world would any NL owner want it?

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Originally Posted by scott91575

I know everyone is saying "oh, it's coming!" Yet what is the justification behind it? When it was introduced in the early 70's offense was way down and the AL was floundering. They needed some sort of gimmick to bring people to the ballpark. Yet baseball popularity is on the rise, and the NL beats the AL in average attendance most years (adding Houston to the AL will only make it worse). Television and radio ratings in NL towns are also consistently higher. So what benefit would NL owners see? Adding the DL would add cost and would likely not bring in any more revenue. It's no longer a novelty. People see it all the time in the AL. Maybe if the MLBPA really pushed for it, but once again, why would owners in the NL be willing to give up something that would be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations for all of MLB? No way they sign off on something where they are the only ones taking a hit.

Competition? While the AL often wins interleague, the NL has won 4 of the last 5 World Series and 7 of the last 12. So in the only interleague games that really matter, the NL competes really well.

I just don't see the reasoning behind it from the NL's perpective. Added cost for zero to minimal benefit. Why in the world would any NL owner want it?

I think, as was stated above, the competition for free agents is probably the impetus behind it. Pujols, Fielder, Hamilton all either switched to the AL or stayed in the AL. A guy like Choo is going to be a free agent after this year. He's still relatively young but he's not getting any younger. He'll have his pick of teams to go to but he's got to be thinking that getting a spot start as a DH is pretty attractive. I would also think some owners in the NL would believe that a DH may be able to lengthen the career of their stars while keeping their bats in the lineup. Of course that's always been the case but with the big money these guys are being paid these days, you have to believe they are thinking about it.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Like I've said, the logical conclusion of the DH argument is 2 platoon baseball, i.e. a defense team and an offense team. If you are going to compensate for a lousy hitting pitcher, the what about catchers and shortstops? Late inning outfield replacements? Most players are skewed either offensively or defensively. Not that I think its going to happen, but it seems to be the issue that is being argued.

Likes:

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

Like I've said, the logical conclusion of the DH argument is 2 platoon baseball, i.e. a defense team and an offense team. If you are going to compensate for a lousy hitting pitcher, the what about catchers and shortstops? Late inning outfield replacements? Most players are skewed either offensively or defensively. Not that I think its going to happen, but it seems to be the issue that is being argued.

Not really. The issue, to me at least, seems to be with pitchers, their offensive abilities are never even considered. If they can pitch well, then they will play. With position players, there is at least some debate about whether their lack of hitting/fielding will determine their playing time.

...the 2-2 to Woodsen and here it comes...and it is swung on and missed! And Tom Browning has pitched a perfect game! Twenty-seven outs in a row, and he is being mobbed by his teammates, just to the thirdbase side of the mound.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Originally Posted by CySeymour

Not really. The issue, to me at least, seems to be with pitchers, their offensive abilities are never even considered. If they can pitch well, then they will play. With position players, there is at least some debate about whether their lack of hitting/fielding will determine their playing time.

True. But it seems the slippery slope argument. You've taken away the premise that every player hits, fields, and runs the bases.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball